Judge Engoron denied two motions by the New York attorney general that would have precluded testimony from two experts on the value of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago property.

In his pretrial ruling, Engoron decided that Trump inflated the value of the oceanfront property by 2,300% by listing its value at least $426 million, despite a tax appraiser determining its value at $27.6 million.

Trump and his lawyers have repeatedly criticized Engoron's finding, arguing that he misunderstood the purpose of a tax appraisal, and they planned to call two experts to support Trump's value of the property: John Shubin to testify about the deed that the state says limits the estate's value because it restricts the use of the property to a club, and Lawrence Moens, one of the top real estate brokers in Palm Beach.

State attorney Kevin Wallace argued that Shubin would offer impermissible legal opinions, and Moens could not offer a traceable process for evaluating the property.

"He is extremely different than a doctor [explaining] how he might conduct a surgery. He is providing evaluation advice," Wallace said about Moens' testimony.

Engoron denied the state's motions, allowing them both to testify -- but said he would enforce objections if they overstep their areas of expertise.

Defense expert Robert Unell testified that both Judge Engoron and Deutsche Bank reached similar conclusions about Donald Trump's actual net worth -- but that Deutsche Bank officials weren't bothered by their determination.

In his partial summary judgment ruling before the trial, Engoron found that the New York attorney general provided "conclusive evidence" that Trump inflated his assets between $812 million and $2.2 billion.

"Even in the world of high finance, this Court cannot endorse a proposition that finds a misstatement of at least $812 million dollars to be 'immaterial,'" Engoron wrote.

Similarly, Deutsche Bank's valuation services group undercut Trump's net worth estimate by roughly than $2.4 billion when they evaluated his 2013 statement of financial condition. Despite that, the bank still loaned Trump millions for three of his properties.

"It would not be unusual," Unell said about the discrepancy identified by the bank.

Engoron cut him off before he could answer whether the discrepancy was within the "adjustment within the range that the court determined."

"I can do the math," Engoron said.

The defense's commercial real estate expert pushed back on the state's contention that Donald Trump used fraudulent means to gain access to favorable loan rates through Deutsche Bank's private wealth management division.

Defense expert Robert Unell testified that Trump "clearly qualified" for commercial loans through the bank's private wealth group.

State attorney Kevin Wallace had argued that Trump "lied to the private wealth group to get these loans," which would support an increased fine in the case.

Unell, however, said, "I have not seen or heard any evidence that President Trump did not qualify for the private wealth management group."

Deutsche Bank managing director Dave Williams, whose testimony Unell reviewed before taking the stand, said earlier that Trump easily met the bank's $100 million net-worth requirement for high-net-worth individuals.

Wallace, however, appeared to argue that Trump would have been disqualified from the private wealth division based on the act of submitting an allegedly false financial statement, rather than an inability to meet a net-worth requirement.

State attorney Kevin Wallace, challenging the testimony of an expert witness for the defense, angrily argued that Trump used fraudulent means to gain access to favorable loan rates through Deutsche Bank's private wealth management division.

The exchange came during Wallace's cross-examination of defense expert Robert Unell, who disputed the state's claim that Trump's alleged misstatements cost lenders $168 million in lost interest because, Unell said, the loan rates the state used in their calculation were higher than the rates Trump was entitled to when he used a personal guarantee as a private wealth client.

"Once you are in the private bank, you are in this sort of rarified air, and you get access to these rates ... it is a flawed premise to say you have to compare it to the outside air," argued Trump attorney Chris Kise after Judge Arthur Engoron removed Unell from the courtroom so the attorneys could hash out the permissibility of Wallace's argument.

Shouting at Kise for repeatedly making lengthy objections, Wallace argued that Trump would have not qualified for the private bank rates had he not fraudulently overstated his assets.

"The court has found that Mr. Trump committed fraud," Wallace said. "To get into the private wealth group, he committed fraud."

"He lied to the private wealth group to get these loans. Therefore, we are looking at what the interest rate would have been had he not had access to the group he lied to," Wallace said of the state's calculation.

Overruling Kise's objection, Engoron said that he supported Wallace's theory.

"I think his explanation is correct," Engoron said.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, in a written brief filed a week before the trial's closing arguments, asked the judge in the case to fine Trump over $370 million to disgorge profits from what James says is a decade of fraudulent business conduct, and to bar Trump for life from participating in the New York real estate industry.

The request for a $370 million fine, plus 9% annual interest, is a sharp increase from James' initial request for disgorgement totaling roughly $250 million.

The largest portion of the requested fine stems from the business loans the Trump Organization obtained using allegedly fraudulent financial statements. Based on expert testimony, James argued that Trump cost his lenders $168,040,168, which the banks would have made if Trump was given the appropriate interest rate corresponding to the actual value of his assets.

In their defense filing, Trump's lawyers called the attorney general's theory for disgorgement "fundamentally flawed, saying that "No lenders testified that they would have done anything differently had they known about Trump's misstatements, and James attempted to fill that evidentiary void with expert testimony, according to Trump's lawyers.

Trump's lawyers added that even if the attorney general proved that some of Trump's profits were ill-gotten, they lack the authority under New York Executive Law 63(12) to request the disgorgement.

Closing arguments in the trial are scheduled for Jan. 11.